[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 7 18:53:43 UTC 2005

Christopher Zorn wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote On 12/02/05 22:39,:
>>>> Ian Paterson wrote:
>>>>> Peter is proposing that the 'route' attribute should be a simple
>>>>> "host[:port]" value. Other possibilities *might* be "xmpp:host[:port]"
>>>>> (compatible with existing JEP-0124 spec) or just "xmpp:host". The latter
>>>>> is compatible with XMPP URI/IRIs ('route' is after all an XMPP resource
>>>>> identifier), but perhaps it is not ideal, see
>>>>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2005-June/007818.html.
>>>> OK, so we have three options:
>>>> 1. host[:port]
>>>>     Pro: specifies everything we need
>>>>     Con: not backwards-compatible with what we have now
>>>>          doesn't support (future?) non-XMPP connections
>>>> 2. xmpp:host[:port]
>>>>     Pro: backwards-compatible with what we have now
>>>>     Con: looks like an XMPP URI but isn't (confusing?)
>>> Option 1 is sufficient for now ... but potentially limiting.
>>> Using "xmpp:host:port" or "xmpp://host:port" (or variations thereof)
>>> would take care of potential future requirements from what we can
>>> envision now ...
>>> Since there are already implementations of clients and
>>> servers/connection managers out there - the changes made should be , if
>>> possible , as backwardly compatible as possible.
>> The more I think about it, the more I don't like specifying URIs
>> (because there are all sorts of rules for processing those which don't
>> apply to us here) but I don't have strong objections to proto:host:port
>> (even though I think proto: is unnecessary and I think it's potentially
>> confusing to have something that looks like a URI but isn't). How many
>> people have implemented this feature (which was added to JEP-0124 in June)?
> It is implemented in punjab, and it checks for xmpp: to start. Other
> than that, I do not parse it as an URI, so I do not think it is
> necessary. host:port is fine by me. :)

OK. I have changed it to be "proto:host:port", see here:


The relevant text is:


A connection manager MAY be configured to enable sessions with more than 
one XMPP server in different domains. When requesting a session with 
such a 'proxy' connection manager, a client SHOULD include a 'route' 
attribute that specifies the protocol, hostname, and port of the server 
with which it wants to communicate, formatted as "proto:host:port" 
(e.g., "xmpp:jabber.org:9999"). [11]

[11] Although the syntax of the 'route' attribute bears a superficial 
resemblance to a URI or IRI, it is not a URI/IRI and MUST NOT be 
processed in accordance with the rules specified in RFC 3986, RFC 3987, 
or draft-saintandre-xmpp-iri.


Naturally this is provisional text and it must be approved by the Jabber 
Council since the JEP is Draft.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20051207/22250a23/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list